… considers legal status for long-term workers
The Republican Party of Donald Trump, president of the United States (US), recently suffered a historic midterm defeat, losing control of both chambers of Congress and several statewide contests in traditionally Republican strongholds.
The setback has forced the US president to confront an uncomfortable consequence of his hardline immigration agenda, a crackdown that won support for securing the border may also have alienated voters concerned about the removal of long-term immigrant workers.
In a significant admission, Trump has conceded that his deportation policy may have been ‘too tough’ and signalled willingness to negotiate with Democrats on legal status for some undocumented workers.
In an interview with CBS News’ 60 Minutes on November 8, Trump acknowledged that deporting immigrants with established jobs had created political difficulties for his administration, despite what he described as success in removing criminals and securing the border.
‘I think it both helped and hurt,’ he said, assessing the political impact of his immigration policy. ‘I think I got an A+ for closing up the border. I get very high marks for getting the bad ones out. But I got hurt because we also took people that had good jobs.’
The admission exposes the tension between aggressive immigration enforcement and an economy that depends on migrant labour. While border security remains a central political objective, removing workers who sustain businesses in hospitality, landscaping and other service industries carries economic and social consequences that extend beyond immigration enforcement.
Trump acknowledged that Americans were divided over the deportation of undocumented workers who had established themselves economically and, in some cases, paid taxes.
‘There is a large part of the country that thinks that they should be put out. And there’s a large part of the country that thinks that they should be allowed to stay if they’re good people working in a landscaping company, or working in a hotel, or doing something, right? And in some cases, paying taxes,’ he said. Deportation crackdown confronts labour market realities
The clearest indication of a possible change in approach came when Trump was asked whether his deportation policy had gone too far.
‘Too tough,’ he replied, before adding: ‘I think it might be too tough, yeah.’
The concession is significant for an administration that made mass deportation a central campaign promise. It suggests growing recognition that removing undocumented workers indiscriminately can disrupt businesses that depend on their labour, particularly in sectors where recruitment and replacement can be difficult.
Trump illustrated the problem with hotel workers, describing how the removal of cleaners, maids and waitresses who had worked in the country for years could affect businesses and communities.
‘When you go into a hotel and you have a woman that’s worked there as, you know, as a maid, as a cleaner, as a this, as a that, as a waitress, a lotta good things, great jobs, and all of a sudden, they’re being taken outta the country, it’s tough. It’s a tough thing,’ he said.
For employers, the removal of experienced workers can mean additional recruitment and training costs, staffing shortages and operational disruption. These pressures are particularly relevant to labour-intensive businesses that rely on a consistent workforce to maintain services.
However, Trump provided no figures on the number of businesses affected or the economic cost of deportations. His comments nevertheless acknowledge a fundamental contradiction: an immigration policy designed to remove unauthorised workers can also weaken the labour supply of businesses that rely on them. Trump considers legal status for long-term workers
More importantly, Trump suggested that undocumented immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for 10 to 15 years could be considered for a negotiated arrangement allowing them to remain.
He maintained that criminals should be deported but distinguished them from workers with established employment histories.
‘Get the killers out. Get all the rough ones out. Get the drug dealers out. But let the people that are here, and in some cases here for ten and 15 years, work a deal for them,’ he said.
The proposal could mark a move towards a more selective enforcement framework that considers employment and length of residence alongside immigration status. However, the president did not specify the legal mechanism, eligibility requirements or whether such an arrangement would lead to temporary work authorisation or permanent residency.
Trump also identified immigration as an area for potential cooperation with Democrats, saying: ‘I’d love to do something on immigration.’
He described a compromise as achievable, claiming that Democratic politicians had already approached him.
‘I think that’s something that’s actually doable,’ he said.
The comments suggest that the administration could consider a legislative compromise for some long-term undocumented residents. But an expression of willingness to negotiate is not a policy announcement, and there is no indication yet of an agreed framework. Trump considers legal status for long-term workers
More importantly, Trump suggested that undocumented immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for 10 to 15 years could be considered for a negotiated arrangement allowing them to remain.
He maintained that criminals should be deported but distinguished them from workers with established employment histories.
‘Get the killers out. Get all the rough ones out. Get the drug dealers out. But let the people that are here, and in some cases here for ten and 15 years, work a deal for them,’ he said.
The proposal could mark a move towards a more selective enforcement framework that considers employment and length of residence alongside immigration status. However, the president did not specify the legal mechanism, eligibility requirements or whether such an arrangement would lead to temporary work authorisation or permanent residency.
Trump also identified immigration as an area for potential cooperation with Democrats, saying: ‘I’d love to do something on immigration.’
He described a compromise as achievable, claiming that Democratic politicians had already approached him.
‘I think that’s something that’s actually doable,’ he said.
The comments suggest that the administration could consider a legislative compromise for some long-term undocumented residents. But an expression of willingness to negotiate is not a policy announcement, and there is no indication yet of an agreed framework. Political pressure raises questions about policy direction
Trump’s comments come as Republicans face the consequences of a major electoral setback. The president acknowledged that his immigration crackdown had both attracted and lost support, particularly where enforcement extended to workers who had otherwise established productive lives in the country.
However, a possible shift towards compromise faces resistance within his political base. Trump acknowledged that some hardline supporters favour removing every undocumented immigrant, irrespective of employment or length of residence.
The uncertainty was reinforced by a personnel change following the interview. CBS reported that Susie Wiles, chief of staff, was replaced by Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff, whom it described as the architect of Trump’s mass deportation policy.
The appointment raises questions about whether the president’s willingness to negotiate will translate into a meaningful change in enforcement priorities.
Ultimately, the debate goes beyond the politics of border security. Governments must enforce immigration laws while recognising the economic contribution of migrant workers and the labour requirements of businesses.
What remains for Trump is to translate that recognition into a clear framework that distinguishes security threats from long-term workers, provides certainty for employers and establishes fair criteria for those seeking to remain.
Whether the president pursues such a compromise or maintains his administration’s hardline approach will determine whether his remarks represent a genuine policy rethink or simply an adjustment prompted by electoral defeat.